Hate crimes …

The recent brutal torture of a mentally challenged white guy by four young black people has brought up the topic of hate crimes again. 

Was it a hate crime or not? 

Actually does it matter?  I don’t think so. 

Ever since the concept of “hate crimes” started – as a way to add extra penalties to crimes already on the books – I’ve thought the concept stupid.

It’s always made me think of the scene in “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum” when one character says he is thinking of killing himself. He’s told that he can’t do that because it’s against the law. And the penalty is death.

That’s exactly what it’s like when prosecutors and politicians call for a murderer to also be charged with a hate crime. What’s the point? If the murderer is facing life imprisonment without parole or the death penalty, what more can anyone add to that?

At some point a crime is a crime, period.  Adding “hate” to a crime doesn’t make it any more of a crime than it already is. Plus, too often everyone gets bogged down subjectively determining whether something is a “hate crime” or not, instead of simply focusing on the crime itself.

Make no mistake: the determination of a “hate crime” is always subjective.  That’s been a major problem with the concept all along.   

When is something a hate crime? 

Let’s take two fairly recent examples.

When four young black people kidnap, torture and hurl racial epithets at a mentally challenged white guy – and post what they are doing in real time on Facebook – is that a hate crime?

When Dylann Roof – a self-proclaimed racist – goes into a black church and kills a number of black parishioners during their prayer service, is that a hate crime? 

It’s interesting to see how each is being treated by politicians and the media.

The four young blacks are being called stupid and irresponsible by a number of black community leaders and politicians. Many in the media are also hesitant to call what they did a hate crime.  Now, if you view the video, they made the white guy drink from a toilet, they slashed him, they made him say he loved black people, they repeatedly said “fuck white people” and “fuck Trump” all while they laughed and continued to torture their white victim. 

Clearly they are monsters. They did what they did because they wanted the world to know what they thought of white people and whites who supported Trump – that was their entire purpose.

So why the hesitation to call it a hate crime?  Take a guess. 

Let’s move on to white Dylann Roof. He hated black people – or so he stated – and shot and killed black parishioners while they peacefully prayed.

No one had the slightest hesitation determining this to be a hate crime.  The media, politicians, and civil rights advocates all came out quickly on this one. 

Personally, I think both crimes were inspired by racial hatred.  But in the end they were just horrifying crimes regardless of that. In one case, an innocent man was kidnapped, tortured and humiliated just for the Hell of it.  In the other, people were murdered for no good reason. 

I don’t think it should ever make any difference what the race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other traits are of either the perpetrators or the victims.Inserting “hate” into the equation shouldn’t have any bearing whatsoever on their prosecution.  Both should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; adding “hate” to their crimes does absolutely nothing except appease certain factions of the public.

And the law – and punishment – should never be about public opinion.   

There’s another reason I’ve never liked the concept of “hate crimes.” It feeds a narrative that a crime perpetrated by one group is somehow worse – and should face stiffer penalties – than the very same crime, or worse, committed by a different group. 

That’s not equal justice. It’s fundamentally wrong. 

Spray-painting a synagogue with a swastika is a hate crime. Spray-painting “Black Lives Matter” on a monument to a long-dead white politician apparently is not. Muslims killing Christians and Jews at a department holiday party is not a hate crime.  If Christians or Jews killed Muslims at a holiday party it would be.  Burning a cross in a black family’s yard would be a hate crime; black rioters burning and looting businesses because they have white or Asian owners would not.

When someone mounts a painting of cops as pigs and a black person being crucified in the U.S. Capitol that's just freedom of expression.  But let a a couple of white guys drive through a college campus with a Confederate flag and it's a hate crime.  

You can’t have it both ways. That’s not how our justice system is supposed to work.

It’s time to get rid of the “hate crime” label and take race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other traits of the perpetrators or victims out of consideration.

A crime is a crime, no matter who does it, or to whom.